The Murtha Democrats
They've found power hard to handle.
by Matthew Continetti
06/04/2007, Volume 012, Issue 36
The first thing on Rep. Mike Rogers's mind was: Don't lose your cool.
It was May 17, and Rogers, a Michigan Republican, was standing on the House floor listening to Rep. Jack Murtha chew him out. Rogers knew why. He sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and had tried to eliminate $23 million that Murtha, the antiwar, big-spending Pennsylvania Democrat, had earmarked for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). The NDIC is a costly, controversial, and scandal-plagued bureaucracy located in the heart of Murtha's district. Rogers wanted to put the $23 million into human intelligence operations and recruitment, programs he says are shortchanged in next year's intelligence appropriations bill.
Murtha disagreed. Committee Democrats backed him, and Rogers's amendment killing the center was defeated in committee. That didn't stop Rogers. He filed another amendment, this one directing the Justice Department to audit the center, which since its creation in 1993 has gone through more than a half-dozen directors and cost taxpayers about $400 million, all the while duplicating work that is done elsewhere. Again, Murtha and committee Democrats opposed Rogers. They defeated the audit amendment.
The story doesn't end there. After Kansas Republican Todd Tiahrt backed Rogers in committee, Murtha went after Tiahrt on the House floor, jabbing his finger at his colleague and threatening retribution. Tiahrt isn't discussing the exchange, but the moment was captured on C-SPAN.
That still didn't stop Rogers. Using a favorite Republican procedural tactic known as a motion to recommit, he called for the intelligence bill to be sent back to committee just before the full House voted on it at about 1 A.M. on May 11. Murtha was furious. Democrats tabled the motion to recommit, and a half-hour later the intelligence bill passed more or less on party lines, 225 to 197.
Murtha made sure other congressmen were around when he went after Rogers. He wanted to send a message. The exchange lasted around two minutes. Murtha used foul language, telling Rogers he would be sure to kill any of Rogers's earmarks if they came up in the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, which Murtha chairs. Rogers protested, saying that's not the way things are done here. That's the way I do it, Murtha said. Murtha doesn't dispute Rogers's account.
The problem was that Murtha had just violated House rules. In their efforts to "drain the swamp" of congressional corruption after taking office in January, House Democratic leaders issued a rule saying members were forbidden from conditioning support for earmarks on another member's voting record. Rogers, a former FBI agent, saw an opportunity. On the evening of May 21 he offered a resolution on the House floor censuring Murtha for violating House rules. The House defeated the motion the next day, on a party-line vote with only a couple of defections. Rogers had gone toe-to-toe with Murtha and lost. But not before embarrassing House Democrats.
The episode illustrates the difficulties facing congressional Democrats as they leave Washington for the week-long Memorial Day recess. In short, governing is difficult, and governing from Capitol Hill is close to impossible. Democrats enter their sixth month in power having passed only one item on their "Six for '06" agenda into law: a staggered increase in the minimum wage. But even this was passed with substantial concessions to Republicans (tax cuts to offset the cost to small businesses) and as part of an overall defeat--the Democrats' retreat on Iraq war spending. Until last week, Democrats were adamant that any war bill contain a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. But they backed down at the last minute, passing a bill 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate that has no timetable and no restrictions on troop deployment. A majority of House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voted against the appropriation. In the Senate, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted No.
Meanwhile, Democratic proposals on the Medicare drug program and stem cell research have either been defeated in the Senate or will be vetoed by President Bush. Pelosi says she won't bring any immigration bill to the floor unless the White House guarantees her 60 to 70 GOP votes--something House Republicans tell me won't happen. And while the controversy over the firing of eight (or nine) U.S. attorneys last year continues to generate heat and light in the Senate, House Republicans led by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have defended embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his former counselor and White House liaison Monica Goodling. In the "win" column, Democrats have passed a budget plan. But that plan may end up helping Bush and the GOP, as it allows most of the president's tax cuts to expire in 2010. And taxes are a winning issue for Republicans.
On no issue are Democratic difficulties more apparent than ethics. Next to Iraq, corruption was the most important issue in last year's elections. It was solely responsible for a few Democratic gains, such as Nick Lampson's victory in the heavily Republican district that Tom DeLay once represented, and Tim Mahoney's close victory over Joe Negron, the Republican who had the misfortune of running for Mark Foley's former seat in a strong Republican district in Florida.
Yet many veteran House Democrats fought meaningful ethics reform, gutting a measure that would have placed restrictions on a congressman's ability to jump from Capitol Hill to K Street and forcing the House leadership to hold a vote on a separate bill requiring lobbyists to disclose the amount of money they "bundle" from clients and send to politicians. It was the House Republicans, again led by Texas's Smith, who played a constructive role, adding amendments that apply the new regulations to state and local lobbyists, extend the bundling-disclosure provision to donations to political action committees, and require lobbyists to identify the earmarks they want entered into spending bills.
The result was that on May 24 the lobbying reform passed overwhelmingly, 396 to 22. It still must be reconciled with the Senate ethics bill and sent to President Bush, but the more important question is whether the Democrats really are serious about changing the "culture of corruption." Most signs aren't encouraging. There's Murtha, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam bribery scandal, who continues to lord over the appropriations process. There's William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat with the $90,000 in cash the FBI found in his freezer. Last week a Capitol Hill newspaper reported that since January the House Ethics Committee has done nothing to further its investigation into Jefferson's alleged double-dealing.
And then there's appropriator Alan Mollohan, the West Virginia Democrat who during his 14 years in Congress has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to his rural district. Mollohan is under investigation for using some of that money to enrich himself. Last year, under pressure from Pelosi, Mollohan gave up his seat on the House Ethics Committee. But he still chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. It oversees . . . the FBI budget. Mollohan says he's recused himself from Justice Department matters until the investigation into his activities ends. And if you believe that's a "serious" reform, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/699rihyi.asp
